The link you povided is talking about the unofficialy committee. A committee which Ben Gurion didnt agree to create that committee (because of that your link refered that committee as "UNOFFICIALY Committee"). As yor link says: And here is what your own source tells us about Ben Gurion's agreement:
funny how you are denying that the Zionists had any plans to exile hundreds of thousands of non-Jews from Israel, or that they engaged in such behaviors during and after the war... ...and yet you argue that that is EXACTLY what should be done to the Arabs today!!!!
The Independance war was from November 29th, 1947 until January 5th, 1949 with several breaks. The first stage of the Independance war was from November 29th 1947, after the voting of 1947 in the UN until March 31st, 1948. In March 10th, 1948 Plan Dalet was created to fight against Arab armed forces.
Your link- Wiki, agrees with me regarding to the committee you wrote about. I already showed you that. Stop ignoring. I didnt wrote that the Arabs in the West Bank or in Gaza need to be deported! I wrote that the Arabs that live in Area C need to be given Israeli I.D. and the rest can control over themselves after getting lands that Jews legaly bought in the West Bank (which you agree with me about giving back lands that Jews legaly bought).
and does Israel need to give back land that has been illegally taken from Arabs to build purely civilian settlements? - - - Updated - - - and to exile Arabs from Israel.
Imagine a setup with a confederation of three states. Israel, gaza, and the West Bank. There could be a bicameral legislature where one house has representation based on population and the other with each state having equal representation. Like the US congress basically. Israel would dominate the "house" and the Palestenian concerns would be given a voice in the "senate". They wouldn't get much done, but where there is truly mutual interest, progress could be made. The states could have a certain amount of autonomy like states in the US, but much more autonomy than US states currently do. It wouldn't have to be very good to be a huge improvement over what we have. This would lead to all sorts of problems that would have to be dealt with because it hasn't been thought out very far, but that doesn't mean things couldn't be worked out. It's not something that could work with the generation currently in power, but it would be an interesting new model of governing an area where regional conflict runs so deep. Instead of a shooting war, they have to fight a political one.
Settlements were built on state lands and private lands, after Israel was obeying the laws in the West Bank, like the Jordanian. But if there are lands in the West Bank that legaly belong to Arabs, and they have documents that didnt lose their validity according to the laws in the West Bank, then yes it needs to be belong to Arabs. The Plan Dalet was a defensive plan after Arabs started to attack Jews in November 1947, which led to the Independance war and Plan Dalet.
lol!!! just as Hitler said the Holocaust was a "defensive" measure. there is nothing "defensive" about exiling innocent civilians.
The objective of Plan Dalet is to fight against Arab armed forced, which started to attac Jews and began te Independance war in November 29th 1947. Hitler, as you brought him, didnt do defensive acts, because when Hitler first started doing the acts in 1933, there wasnt any war or danger on the German sociaty.
Hitler says the acts were defensive, just as you think exiling hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish civilians from Israel was "defensive". - - - Updated - - - Israel's Occupation of the West Bank is governed by international law, and international law BANS the confiscation of private land for any purposes other than security and military. Israel's Supreme Court confirmed this in 1979, which is why since 1979 Israel stopped confescating Arab private land.
Please read: Hitler's acts and Plan Dalet are two different things. As I showed you again. "The Mandate for Palestine", which still valid, gave the legal right to Jews to settle there and to build their homeland. As I numerous of times showed you. Israel is obeying the laws in the West Bank, like Jordanian. Obeying laws is not illegal.
now YOU read: Plan Dalet- Mounting operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories: Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously. Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state. this is genocide and ethnic cleansing. no people with an ounce of honor would not resist an army that sets fire to, blows up, and puts bombs in the rubble of their homes and villages. and in the case of honorable resistance, Israel will exile the ENTIRE community. which is a war crime.
Plan Dalet continues: Counterattacks will generally proceed as follows: a force the size of a battalion, on average, will carry out a deep infiltration and will launch concentrated attacks against population centers and enemy bases with the aim of destroying them along with the enemy force positioned there. notice how it distinguishes between population centers and military bases. this is calling for terrorism and war crimes. disgusting.
There was no genocide when the Arabs attacked Jewish residents and Jewish armed forces. Like they started in November 29th 1947. Like the objective of the operation was: There was no "ethnic cleansing". The Jewish armed forces took over territory that there were attacks against the Jewish armed forces, which it needed to be retaliated. Once an army took over territory at time of war, it made the territories become "military areas". in military araes civilians cant be found. It's very accaptable. it's not "ethnic cleansing". Ben Gurion also suggested to return Arabs that been disconnected from the land while the war. The suggestion was not accepted.
Israel committed ethnic cleansing against non-Jews in 1948, 1949, and 1967. They planned on this in Plan Dalet. Before 1948, there were 700,000 non-Jews in Israel. In 1949, there were only 200,000. This is the result of ethnic cleansing.
Plan Dalet shows that the Haganah planned on carrying out ethnic cleansing if Arabs resisted any attacks by the Zionists upon their communities. its not my fault that Neo-Zionists ignore this horrible fact.
I'm not ignoring! As I said: The evidence for it is when Ben Gurion also suggested to return Arabs that been disconnected from the land while the war. The suggestion was not accepted.
yes, I know that you deny that Israel planned on committing ethnic cleansing against any Arab population that dared to resist criminal attacks upon their communities. its a shame and a disgrace.
I'm not ignoring. never did. I said that when the Jewish armed forced took control over areas,then the area at time of war become "military area", which means that no civilian (Jewish or not) need to be in the area. The taking over was to retain edventage over the Arab armed forces. It is very accepable. The evidence for it is when Ben Gurion also suggested to return Arabs that been disconnected from the land while the war. The suggestion was not accepted.
so that's the excuse Israel used to force out hundreds of thousands of Arabs? they designated Arab villages as "military areas"??? lol!!!!! how honest of them. let me ask you this: if the goal was simply to limit areas to only Israeli military, why did Plan Dalet say that the civilians had to moved across the border, and not simply to other parts of Israel? because they wanted to remove non-Jews from the state. deal with it. embrace the truth.
A lot of the Arabs left theri houses because their leaders told them to evecuate. Like I already showed you. Because other parts of Israel was war and the Jewish armed forces needed areas in Israel for stratific edvetage. As I alraedy wrote you: Ben Gurion also suggested to return Arabs that been disconnected from the land while the war. The suggestion was not accepted. If that was "ethnic cleansing", like you say, then Ben Gurion never would suggested that. But he did. .
Plan Dalet said that any Arab community that resisted Israeli attacks, was to be removed from Israel. Not sent to another part of Israel, but removed from the borders of the state. This is ethnic cleansing, and Israel is guilty.
Ben Gurion also suggested to return Arabs that been disconnected from the land while the war. The suggestion was not accepted. If that was "ethnic cleansing", like you say, then Ben Gurion never would suggested that. But he did. .
oh, so now we're using Ben Gurion as a trusted source? well, let's look at some statements from the oh so famous and reliable, David Grun. "When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." "We must expel Arabs and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." "The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." ". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." "With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." "But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." "Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer ..... As for the compulsory transfer-- as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah." "In my opinion we must insist on the Peel Commission proposal, which sees in the transfer the only solution to this problem. And I have now to say that it is worthwhile that the Jewish people should bear GREATEST material sacrifices in order to ensure the success of transfer." "the compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the projected Jewish state . . . . we have to stick to this conclusion the same way we grabbed at the Zionism itself." "As Ben-Gurion explained, the advantage of the [Palestinian] Arabs having Arab citizenship was that in the event of hostilities, their legal status would be that of resident aliens, and they therefore "could be expelled" from the Jewish state for potential disloyalty. With Israeli citizenship, on the other hand, "it would only be possible to imprison them, and it would be better to expel them than to imprison them." "Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary." "We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion, There are of course sections of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel which will not resist transfer under adequate conditions to certain neighboring countries, such as the Druze, a number of Bedouin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the south, the Circassians and perhaps even the Metwalis [the Sh'ite of the Galilee]. But it would be very difficult to bring about resettlement of other sections of the [Palestinian] Arab populations such as the fellahin and the urban populations in neighboring Arab countries by transferring them voluntarily, whatever economic inducements are offered to them."
